Need help selecting a new lens.

[burd]

I have a 400D (with 18-55) and 75-300 F4 (never used and will probably sell it) and 100mm f2.8 macro (Non IS) (this is my most used lens)
i mainly shoot animals insects and reptiles mostly with the 100mm.
and some landscape, HDR, and long exposures. so i use the 18-55 sometimes.
sometimes i shoot small family/friend events.

Im buying a 7D soon and i don't know what lens to buy along with it ive heard the 15-85 has some problems i don't want to pay a lot .
i have considered selling the 75-300 and 100mm macro and pay a little extra and get the new 100mm f2.8 IS as its my most used lens.
or should i buy a new/different focal length? i have also considered the 10-22 or tokina 11-16
but i read that they're only good for landscape/scenery and are not very good for people or close objects.
Can anybody help me choose a lens?
Thanks

[neuroanatomist]

ive heard the 15-85 has some problems


Depends on what you mean by 'problems'. The image quality is very good in terms of sharpness, but it does suffer from significant distortion at the wide end, and vignetting wide open. It's also a variable-aperture zoom, meaning that like your 18-55mm kit lens, the maximum aperture gets narrower ('slower') as you get to the long end of the zoom range. I think it would be a good 'general purpose' zoom lens especially for outdoor use (and indoors if paired with an external Speedlite flash like a 430EX II).



i have considered selling the 75-300 and 100mm macro and pay a little extra and get the new 100mm f2.8 IS as its my most used lens


I wouldn't. Optically, the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-IS) is very similar to the IS version - both are excellent.



i have also considered the 10-22 or tokina 11-16but i read that they're only good for landscape/scenery and are not very good for people or close objects


Again, it depends on what you mean by 'not good'. An ultra-wide angle (UWA) lens like the 10-22mm makes a really bad portrait lens (due to the perspective distortion caused by how close to the subject you'd need to be to frame a portrait - noses will be huge). Actually, the 10-22mm has a very close minimum focus distance, meaning you can get some nice shots of a close-up object with a wide background - there's a lot of creative potential there. But mostly, yes, a UWA lens is used for landscapes, and also a favorite of real estate agents (since you can get an entire small room in the frame).


IMO, an UWAdoes not make a good general purpose lens.






some landscape, HDR, and long exposures. so i use the 18-55 sometimes.


If it seems to you that the pictures taken with the 100mm macro have substantially better image quality (IQ) than the 18-55mm kit lens, then you might consider replacing that one. Both the 18-55mm and the 75-300mm fall into Canon's 'cheap consumer zoom lens' category - generally poor IQ, and poor build quality too.


IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for a crop body like your 400D or the 7D. IQ is excellent, it's got a fast and constant aperture, and it's a good focal length range (and sits nicely under the 100mm macro). However, it's an expensive lens! If you're not averse to 3rd party lenses, many people recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC (VC = Tamron's IS; the non-VC version is reportedly sharper than the VC version). That lens provides similarly excellent IQ compared to the 17-55mm, but at around half the cost of the Canon lens (autofocus with the Tamron is louder and a little slower than the Canon 17-55mm, and full-time manual focusing is not available).

[TucsonTRD]

I would highly recommend the 17-55 IS. You can find used ones here and on fred miranda for around $900. Sometimes less, depending on how quickly you want to get it. That may be more than you plan to spend, but I think it would be a purchase you wouldn't regret.


Good luck.

[TucsonTRD]

BTW, Welcome to the forum!!

[burd]

I think the 17-55 is a good choice, i will definitly sell the 18-55 and 75-300 (they probably wont get me much) and maybe the 400D aswell but what about the 17-40mm f/4 L ?
i know the 17-55 is faster and better for low light but the 17-40 is an L what do you think?

[crosbyharbison]

i know the 17-55 is faster and better for low light but the 17-40 is an L what do you think?






The build quality is better and presumably the autofocus; thats about it for advantages between the two.





17-55 is your best bet. If your doing a lot of wildlife consider the 100-400 its an amazing combo on the 7D.

[Sheiky]

i know the 17-55 is faster and better for low light but the 17-40 is an L what do you think?






The build quality is better and presumably the autofocus; thats about it for advantages between the two.





17-55 is your best bet. If your doing a lot of wildlife consider the 100-400 its an amazing combo on the 7D.






Both have the same Ring USM so that won't make a difference.


Both have great IQ.


Pros 17-55 are IS and f2.8 aperture


Pros 17-40 are weathersealed (with frontfilter) so it would mean a good outdoors weathersealed combination with your 7D, it's a bit cheaper.


I chose between them half a year ago, but not considering the weathersealing as important. I chose the 17-55, but nowadays I don't know becasue I also like to wander around when weather ain't so great.


Jan

[neuroanatomist]

i know the 17-55 is faster and better for low light but the 17-40 is an L what do you think?






The build quality is better and presumably the autofocus; thats about it for advantages between the two.





The build quality of the 17-40mm f/4L is better, yes. Not sure that the AF is better. Both have ring USM with FTM. An f/2.8 lens like the 17-55mm enables the high-precision center AF point (the 400D does have that feature). Also, twice the incoming light with an f/2.8 lens vs. f/4 means better focusing in low-light situations (important indoors). So, given that, I would thin AF on the 17-55mm would perform better.


The 17-55mm has less barrel distortion at 17mm than the 17-40mm (and that's despite cropping with a lens compatible with FF; on FF it suffers pretty badly from distortion). The 17-55mm has more vignetting wide open (here the crop factor helps the 17-40mm more). The 17-55mm has slightly better resolution even at f/2.8, especially at the edges, than the 17-40mm.


Overall, I think the optical quality of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is slightly better than the 17-40mm f/4L. The build quality of the 17-40mm f/4L is better, and it's less expensive (and includes the hood, which must be purchased separately for the 17-55mm). The 17-40mm is compatible with FF if you plan to go there soon.



<div>






Pros 17-40 are weathersealed (with frontfilter) so it would mean a good outdoors weathersealed combination with your 7D.


I chose between them half a year ago, but not considering the weathersealing as important. I chose the 17-55, but nowadays I don't know becasue I also like to wander around when weather ain't so great.



<div>Weather-sealing is the main reason I got the 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]L IS. I do like that lens, but I still find the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS generally more useful. The f/4 lens hunts for focus more often indoors unless I have the 430EX II mounted (I hate the strobe assist from a pop-up flash).</div>
</div>

[burd]

Thank you all for your help.
im still not sure which to get i will think about them both and check them out when i travel.
thanks again :)

[btaylor]

I think you'd get more versatility out of the 17-55mm f/2.8. Wide angle lenses like the 17-40mm generally have a very wide depth of field inherent in their design so you might not get the nice diffused background blur as you would with the 17-55mm. You can always stop the 17-55mm down to increase your depth of field.


Someone correct me if the above statement's not entirely true, I don't want to be giving out bad advice here. It's what I found with the 10-22mm anyway.


Cheers, Sven